Navigate:

Opinion Contributor

Supreme Court's corruption of election law

This is a naïve view of U.S. politics and influence-buying corruption.

In its 1976 Buckley decision, the court found that, based on the record before it, independent campaign spending “does not presently appear to pose dangers of real or apparent corruption comparable to those identified with large campaign contributions.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

Underlying that ruling, however, was the fact that there was little, if any, history of independent spending before 1976. Because until then, donors could contribute unlimited amounts directly to candidates.

Circumstances have changed dramatically. Yet, in Citizens United, the court never provided the parties with an opportunity to create a record to show that independent expenditures can corrupt federal officeholders or create the appearance of corruption. Indeed, the constitutionality of the ban on corporate spending was not even in the Citizens United case -- until the Supreme Court added it.

But once it added it, the court did not send the case back to the lower court, where a record could be developed. Instead, relying on what it said in 1976, the court made a broad pronouncement that independent expenditures could not exercise a corrupting influence.

The court’s finding in Citizens United does not acknowledge the real world of influence-buying corruption today. How can a corporation that spent $20 million or $30 million to elect a senator not gain influence over the senator’s positions as a result? It also belies reality to think that such expenditures do not create the appearance of corrupting influence -- just because the corporation has not “coordinated” its expenditures with the senator.

The court in Citizens United did not base these unwarranted assumptions on any record.

So, we end up with a ruling based on the premise that it is crucial to have effective disclosure so citizens can “make informed choices.” But, in fact, the Supreme Court decision paved the way for massive amounts of secret contributions.

In similar fashion, we end up with a decision based on the premise that corporate campaign expenditures cannot be coordinated with a federal candidate. But, in fact, given the court’s failure to define coordination, as well as ineffectual FEC rules, they can be coordinated.

And, we end up with a decision based on the premise that corporations’ independent campaign expenditures, by definition, cannot have a corrupting influence. But, in fact, they can.

Some decision!

Fred Wertheimer is founder and president of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan organization that promotes government transparency and accountability.

Tonight on MSNBC, I heard Racheal Madcow floating a scheme to change the rules of the Senate, so that only 51 votes would be required to pass more of the type of extremist crap we have seen for the last two years. Democracy be dammed. They will stoop to whatever is necessary to impose tyranny.

floating a scheme to change the rules of the Senate, so that only 51 votes would be required to pass more of the type of extremist crap we have seen for the last two years. Democracy be dammed. They will stoop to whatever is necessary to impose tyranny.

There's nothing in the Constitution about getting 60 votes in the Senate.

In terms of the Constitution, the Senate, by a simple majority vote, can change the cloture rules at any time

Typical conservative B.S, they only cite the Constitution when it suits their view

Speaking of the Constitution, I propose a Constitutional Amendment to end corporate political contributions

just to make it clear as day

and in the spirit of compromise, the Amendment can ban contributions from unions too

i support unions and all, they are our cops, firepeople and teachers

but many of them are conservative, so making them contribute is not fair

Life is short, we should be amending the Constitution as much as we can

With all the resources available to them, you can't tell me that those five justices made an honest error. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they will bear that shame for the rest of their lives. There is momentum building to undo the Citizens United ruling. It's our only hope for "we, the people."

Tonight on MSNBC, I heard Racheal Madcow floating a scheme to change the rules of the Senate, so that only 51 votes would be required to pass more of the type of extremist crap we have seen for the last two years. Democracy be dammed. They will stoop to whatever is necessary to impose tyranny.

Democracy is damned by stopping the abuse of the filibuster and having majority votes?

And the idea Sen Udall was speaking about wouldn't completely rid of the filibuster. It would instead put the burden on the minority to maintain the floor and sustain 40 votes instead of being able to just filibuster by not standing on the floor with the majority having the burden to come up with 60 votes. The proposal might also include a provision in which the number ofvotes needed to end a filibuster moves down after time (60 -> 55 -> 53 -> 51).

This is a good idea. It will force the parties to work together and force minorities to stand up for what they beleive in on the Senate floor (which is good for public debate).

You should think before you knock proposals that you know nothing about.

THIS SUPREME COURT WILL PUT AN END TO OBAMA CARE ONCE AND FOR ALL. EVERYTHING THE BOY KING USURPED WILL BE UNDONE. ALL THE ATTACKS ON ALITO, THOMAS AND ROBERTS WILL NOT WORK. ALL THE SILLY SOCIALIST TV SHOWS WITH JIMMY SMITS WILL NOT WORK. BLACK PANTHERS WILL BE JAILED. ARIZONA WILL BE SECURED. GROUND ZERO MOSQUE WILL BE GONE. ISLAM AND SOCIALISM WILL BE UNMASKED AS SUBVERSIVE FORCES IN A FREE SOCIETY. THIS SUPREME COURT WILL SAVE AMERICA. SUIBNE

Just because you Leftists hate Freedom of Speech in America and want to usher in a Stalinist State doesn’t mean that a court decision that you don’t agree with is “corrupt”. If that's the case, then Roe vs Wade which is responsible for the Democrat murder of tens of millons of babies is "corrupt".

Ergo, you Leftists are all a bunch of Hate America idiots. Even your own administration calls you Leftists a bunch of “F-ing retards”.

Democrats hate freedom of speech and want to control all freedom of expression in America that disagrees with them. Sorry Leftists, if you love a Stalinist State I suggest you move to Cuba or North Korea where you can join your Leftist brethren in your little Communist “Utopia”.all

Progressive Socialists just can't stand on a level playing field, their foulness and diseased ideas are exposed for all to see and like roach's they cannot stand the light of day, Soros will soon find his place in hell and the creeps money will be what stokes his fiery torment, and it can't happen soon enough for me.

Everything the GOP does is like removing another brick from our American framework and thus dismanteling our Constitution and the American way - instead they are creating a sick corrupt avarice two tiered society where olichargies rule and the slave laberor pays all the taxes with no benefits at all. Might as well move to China for that kind of treatment.

Democrats hate freedom of speech and want to control all freedom of expression in America that disagrees with them. Sorry Leftists, if you love a Stalinist State I suggest you move to Cuba or North Korea where you can join your Leftist brethren in your little Communist “Utopia”.

It is quite the opposite. Is it not FOX News that calls Julian Assange a traitor or an act of treason for showing the hypocrisy in our State Dept. and soon the fraud of banks. Did they not call to kill that man? All things the free press should be pursuing but in a land run by GOP is quashed. It is FOX news that makes "newspeak" such as wanting to remove the term Wall Street and rename it something else so Wall Street won't be synonymous with Greed and Corruption. You call libs socialists but it was your corrupt GOP bankers and hedge fund managers who demanded we bail them out and the same with poor managment at the car companies who neede to bailed out. No one wanted to give them money or wanted the government to own any part of them but their failure would be so devasting we had too bail them out too. There is no liberal agenda to have government own all industry which is what socialism is. Instead Liberals just want to have a few social programs that all other free democratic countries have for their people. That is not socialism but that is called caring for the masses so the whole of society is better off. A happy middle class is what has made America great. The GOP want to destroy that too. The GOP are facists and very evil.